Apple says U.S. is refusing to produce federal agency documents in DOJ antitrust case

Apple is asking a federal judge in New Jersey to force the U.S. government to turn over documents from 14 federal agencies that it says could support its defense in the DOJ’s antitrust case. The government, however, disagrees. Here are the details.

Apple seeks government data in iPhone antitrust lawsuit

Apple and the U.S. government have filed a joint discovery dispute letter with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, formalizing their disagreement over whether Apple is entitled to obtain documents from 14 federal agencies.

The request is part of Apple’s defense in the antitrust case the DOJ brought against the company in 2024, alleging that Apple illegally maintains a monopoly in the smartphone market by restricting apps, services, and accessories that could make it easier for users to switch away from iPhone.

According to Apple:

The United States is refusing to produce its own agency documents that are relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses. These documents reflect the United States’ own assessments of key issues, such as iPhone’s market differentiators, privacy and security risks associated with various smartphones, and the potential dangers of exposing iPhone’s secure ecosystem to less rigorous and less vetted third parties. Apple believes these materials will support its arguments that the practices Plaintiffs challenge make Apple’s products different—and, in the eyes of Apple’s customers, better—than alternatives and thus promote competition. Whether through Rule 34 party discovery or Rule 45 subpoenas, these agency documents are discoverable and should be produced.

Apple is basing its request on two separate discovery paths: Rule 34, which generally governs document requests directed at parties in a lawsuit, and Rule 45, which governs subpoenas directed at non-parties.

Apple argues that the documents should be produced either way: if the federal agencies are treated as part of the United States for discovery purposes, the documents are covered by Rule 34. If they are treated separately, Apple says its Rule 45 subpoenas still require production.

Apple claims that despite its many attempts to obtain these documents, “the United States has refused to produce a single document from the relevant agencies, and in the meantime has forced Apple to run in circles,” offering conflicting and sometimes contradictory procedural objections to producing them.

Apple is seeking documents related to:

1. (H)ow federal agencies find, evaluate, and purchase smartphones and wearables, as well as agency evaluations and guidance related to the selection and use of smartphones and the specific products and services at issue.
2. (A)gencies’ concerns regarding non-Apple operating systems and app marketplaces and the risks associated with mandating third-party access to Apple’s platforms.
3. The United States’ own smartphone pricing and market share data.
4. (D)ocuments related to several agencies’ own involvement in Apple’s developer program for creating internal-use apps.

Apple’s argument is basically the following: if the documents can show that federal agencies independently recognized the benefits of Apple’s approach to security, privacy, pricing, or app development, then the government’s claims about anticompetitive iPhone practices could become weaker, since parts of the government itself would have treated those same practices as legitimate product advantages.

Apple further notes that it has carefully selected 14 out of the government’s 444 agencies, in an attempt to preempt the argument that its request is too broad or burdensome.

Finally, Apple says the government cannot use the possibility that some documents may be privileged, classified, or protected to justify refusing to search for relevant documents altogether.

U.S. government shoots back

In its response, the U.S. argues that Apple’s requests are irrelevant, overly burdensome, and likely to implicate privileged or classified materials.

From the “Position of the United States” section of the document:

Apple has issued subpoenas to 14 federal government agencies—including several in the Intelligence Community—none of which regulate smartphones, participated in the investigation, or are otherwise part of this litigation. Not surprisingly, Apple’s requests on their face reflect that any documents these agencies may have that would be responsive are at best tangentially relevant to the factual disputes presented by this case. Collecting, reviewing, and producing responsive documents, including from classified document systems, would require extraordinary effort and cause exceptional burden on these agencies, in part because many documents Apple requests are highly likely to be privileged or classified. The information sought lacks relevance because these agencies do not regulate the products or markets at issue, and they do not purchase or use smartphones in the same ways as ordinary consumers. The requests are overbroad, and Apple has neither offered nor accepted any workable narrowing to reduce the burden on these agencies and limit the expense to taxpayers.

The government then expands on that argument in three parts. First, it says the subpoenaed agencies are too far removed from the consumer smartphone market at the center of the case. Second, it argues that those agencies should be treated as non-parties under Rule 45, not as part of the United States for ordinary party discovery. And third, it says Apple’s requests are too broad and would require burdensome searches through sensitive government systems, even though the U.S. argues the likely relevance is limited.

The government ends its request by telling the court that “Apple’s requests for production by 14 agencies that are otherwise uninvolved in this action should be denied, and the subpoenas quashed.”

You can read the full joint discovery dispute letter below: